Barack Obama is a complete failure. He’s an utter disgrace. But he’s an articulate failure and utter disgrace. Which means he’s always smooth-talking, always using disingenuous and dishonest rhetoric to conceal or camouflage his failure.

As an example, Obama is out on the stump saying:

“And I do want to point out, when you get in your car, when you go forward, what do you do? You put it in ‘D.’ When you want to go back, what do you do? (Laughter.) You put it in ‘R.’ We won’t want to go into reverse back in the ditch. We want to go forwards. We got to put it in ‘D.’ (Applause.) Can’t have the keys back.” (Laughter.)

Putting facts to the rhetoric doesn’t look so good for Obama. George Bush “handed Obama the keys” with unemployment two full points lower and with the deficit trillions of dollars lower. Would I rather have Obama’s 9.5% unemployment – which as bad as it is is artificially low because of all the people who’ve dropped out of the job market, and which is now forecasted to up to 10% and remain there next year – or would I rather put the car in ‘R’ and go back to Bush’s worst unemployment rate of 7.6%?

We’re going to have a double dip recession – and which president is responsible for that second giant scoop of pain which will occur ENTIRELY on Obama’s watch? Goldman analyst Jan Hatzius and his team just lowered their GDP forecast for 2011 from 2.5% to a dismally pathetic 1.9%, increased their unemployment forecast from 9.8% to 10.0%, boosted their inflation expectation from 0.4% to 1.0%, and said that the rather frightening Fed scenario known as “QE lite” is now on the table.

“As a result of this downgrade, we now expect the jobless rate to rise to 10% by early 2011 and remain there for the rest of the year.”

Does that make you want to put the car in ‘D,’ dumbass (which is another thing that ‘D’ stands for, for what it’s worth)? We can see the cliff, but it’s full speed ahead with the turbochargers blazing.

Obama says that Republicans don’t have “a single, solitary new idea” to help the American people recover from the economic recession. Which takes a lot of chutzpah, given that Obama’s “new ideas” date back to 1848 and Karl Friggin Marx. And the very newest “new ideas” of all date back to the colossal failure otherwise known as Jimmy Carter. It’s not enough to say that Obama is throwing stones in a glass house; he’s using a machine gun to blast out every pane in the building.

Obama is quite “articulate” at fearmongering, race-baiting, slandering, demagoguing and demonizing his opponents.

But that kind of crap is all Obama’s got. He’s incompetent at everything else. As a matter of simple routine, we receive massively conflicting and contradictory messages from this White House. On Wall Street. On Afghanistan. On health care. On Iran. On Everything. Other than that, the first president of “God damn America!” is an utter disgrace.

According to today’s Employment Status Report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reveals that as of July 31, 2010 there were 857,000 fewer persons employed than there were in July of 2009. Yet from Barack’s glass bubble, it sounded like all is well. Sure, his chief economist, Christina Romer just resigned, but that’s no cause for concern. The latest from Obama is that ‘private employment has increased every month’ during 2010. Really? Does that mean there are more jobs today than there were yesterday?

Following is my latest presidential scorecard, based purely on official BLS data:
Obama was quick to take credit for the false increase in overall employment, earlier this year, when the U.S. Census Bureau hired 500,000 temporary workers, but now that they’re all gone he’s been slow to acknowledge the true situation. According to the BLS there were 139.8 million Americans employed in July of 2009, and 138.9 million employed in July of 2010. That’s a decline of 857,000 jobs over the past 12 month’s. There has actually been a steady, and progressive, decline in civilian employment for the past year, but you know, Obama doesn’t have time to look at facts and figures.

When G.W. Bush entered office in January of 2001, there were 136.8 million jobs. When he left office in December of 2008, there were 145.3 million jobs. When Obama entered office in January of 2009, there were 145.3 million jobs. As of July 31st of this year, there were 138.9 million jobs. So when we do the math, there are now 6.4 million fewer jobs than there were when Obama entered office in January of 2009. That’s reality. That’s what it feels like on the ground. Obama is losing, and losing big. And in his losing, he’s dragging America and the Democrat party along for the ride.

Is this what success looks like in the minds of progressive Democrats? Is losing the new winning? If so, Obama is certainly leading the pack. It’s time to throw the bum(s) out!

The labor force has never decreased since World War II – and it has now decreased for two years in a row under the worst failure in American history.

We have one chance, and only one chance, to avoid a Great Depression. And that is to elect a Republican House of Representatives and a Republican Senate.

Bill Clinton gets all the credit for being the economic genius who gave us incredible economic growth by the mainstream media. But if that’s so, why was he smacked down with the biggest political landslide in American history, when Republicans came from out of nowhere to retake both the House and the Senate in 1994? And why was it that it was only AFTER the Republicans took control of Congress that we began to see the positive economic developments?

Read my article on the subject for why the credit for the “Clinton Economy” belongs with the Republicans in Congress. It is Congress which enacts budgets, and it is Congress alone which has the authority to spend.

It is also Congress alone which can check a foolish, incompetent, and out-of-control president.

A very powerful indictment of Obama, his administration and its Democrat party allies.

When all of the ideological precepts are set aside and results are the sole determining factor in judgment, this administration, its President, the Democrat congress and their leftist and liberal supporters are revealed as a complete and utter failure.

Unemployment is actually FAR higher than 9.5%. And it is actually FAR worse than the 2-point difference between Bush’s last rate and Obama’s now.

As workers become increasingly discouraged, the REAL unemployment (the U6 rate) has gone up and up and up. Something like 17.5% of the American workforce are now either unemployed, too discouraged to bother looking for work, or were forced to take part time work when they very much want to be full time.

Now, of course, Obama IS doing something about the situation. He is blaming Bush every single chance he gets.

Unfortunately, that would be a sign that the will of the people actually in some way matters to Obama. And after ramming first the stimulus, then health care, then his cap and trade crap via bureaucratic shenanigans, it is pretty clear that Obama couldn’t give a damn about the will of the people.

Love the title but do you seriously think that the economy would not have tanked if Bush had a third in office?

Michael Eden is pretty much spot on. Besides creating huge deficits, Obama is responsible for creating debilitating uncertainty in the economy by ramrodding policies without regard to their economic consequences.

The economy tanked while Bush WAS in office; so I would not make what I would consider to be a ridiculous argument.

That said, I want to point out that many of the reasons that the economy tanked in the first place were caused by Democrat rather than Bush policies. Fannie and Freddie were a principle cause of the crisis. They were the ones who bought up and bundled numerous mortgages into “mortgage-backed securities” and then sold them to private financial institutions. It was these securities which became toxic debt because no one could know how many bad mortgages there were with the good. It was also Fannie and Freddie which began the subprime loans.

Fannie and Freddie, and the policy to push home ownership for those who could not repay the loans, were both pure Democrat.

Now that I’ve said that, the other thing I would want to point out is that if Republicans had been running the show after the collapse, they would have got things back to normal far more quickly than Democrats.

Right now, businesses are on the sidelines. They are afraid to hire or expand because they fear what anti-business liberals will do to them. ObamaCare made hiring FAR more expensive. Obama’s tax agenda makes earning a profit far less profitiable and risk far more risky. And then there is the malaise that comes from uncertainty: what are these idiots going to do next?

From my perspective, the businesses being afraid to hire are not the problem. What’s wrong is the banks are afraid to loan. I work in the construction industry and we landed a good size job that would have carried the company through the winter. It lasted three days and the bank pulled the financing after the latest job report.

“Malaise”- that’s the perfect word. The “double dip” will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In taking the two sides you suggest, we could have a smack-down argument – and both be right.

My understanding is that credit is widely available – and that banks genuinely WANT to lend so that they can make profits – but that the banks are finally starting to pursue sound lending policies.

Let me put it this way: most loan applications these days are for the purposes of covering past losses, as struggling businesses hope to stay afloat until the good times come back. And banks are not going to go for that after what they went through. At least not without having a lot of solidly performing loans to balance out their risk.

Construction loans are some of the riskiest of all. If you’ve driven by an abandoned partially completed project, you’ll understand why.

We’re looking at a real conundrum: many say that the problem is low consumer spending. Others say it’s unemployment. And of course, it’s both, plus the hesitation of banks to loan money to risky projects.

But why aren’t consumers spending? Because of the unemployment picture, many say. No job, no spend.

And why aren’t there more jobs? Because the lack of consumer spending has retarded demand for goods and services, many say.

But if people won’t spend unless there are more jobs, but we can’t have more jobs until people spend, then how do we get out of this rat maze?

Big companies have actually fared rather well laying off all their non-essential workers and increasing their productivity on the backs of workers who are terrified they’ll be the next to go. But they are just sitting on their capital; they’re not investing in expansion. In this case they don’t need loans; they have plenty of money. They just don’t want to expand more so that Obama will smack them with higher costs and taxes.

I hope you’re able to find a good job, Rob.

I have to laugh at the situation, though. Remember how Obama sold his stimulus with talk about “shovel ready jobs”? You should have ALL KINDS of jobs in construction; and yet it’s one of the worst industries in terms of unemployment.

It’s almost as if – and I look up at Mount Olympus and tremble with fear to say it – Obama lied.

The point of contention here is that the great recession is really becoming more evident. We can see that unemployment rates are increasing so as with inflation. All these economic problems lies in the hands of the president. Let him resolve this problem.

It’s a lot easier for Democrats to continue in their pathological incompetence and just blame Bush for all their failures. Because they know that there are these incredibly stupid moral idiots called “Democrats” who will continue to believe every Big Lie in the playbook.

Apparently, I should be a very sought-after worker, because I walk like I’m in an Indy race.